This was a motion before his Honour sitting in Matrimonial Causes Jurisdiction by Mr O'sullivan to order absolute decree nisi for dissolution of marriage, on the ground ofthe wife's adultery. The petitioner, Rudolph Gnech, is a farmer residing at Dugandan, formerly Tarampa, and he was married to respondent at the Lutheran Church, Minden on 27th November, 1883. Immediately after the marriage ceremony had been performed they returned to petitioner's farm at Tarampa, where they lived together until early in the month of February following.They then had some slight quarrel about his going to a public house, and Mrs. Gnech left her husband's house and went to her mother'splace at Fernvale, a few miles away. This was about midday, and, after she did not return that night or next morning, the petitioner went to Ipswich, and, after delaying a day or so, sailed to Sydney, and remained away till the following December. On his return he was arrested in Ipswich for wife desertion, and brought up before the police magistrate, who, however, made no order. Mrs Gnech swore she was earning 25s. a week at Finney, lsles,and Co's, and the police-magistrate decided she was not without means of support. This was absolutely false, Mrs Gnech never having worked at Finney, Isles, and Co.'s. After the case the petitioner asked the respondent to come and live with him again, which she agreed to do, stating at the same time that she would have to go to Brisbane to make arrangements first. He received a letter from her in which she refused to live with him, and co-habited with a man named Lee, who had married her believing her to be a single girl.

His Honour, it will be remembered, granted a rule nisi in this case on the 12th October, to be moved absolute six months from that date.

His Honour now adjourned the case until Wednesday for the production of an affidavit to show that the respondent and co-respondent had left the colony.

A divorce suit, in which Rudolph Gnech was petitioner, Augusta Gnech respondent, and John Lee co-respondent, was heard before his Honour to-day.

Mr. Real, instructed by Messrs. Lilley and O'sullivan, appeared for the petitioner, and no appearance was made on behalf of either respondent or co-respondent.

The petitioner asked for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of his wife's adulterywith the co-respondent, and damages were sought to be recovered against the co-respondent.

Mr. REAL asked that the petition might be amended by the omission of the claim for damages, as if that were pressed it would be necessary for the case to go to a jury.

The CHIEF JUSTICE : I shall take it that you have abandoned formally your claim for damages. Of course I cannot assess damages.

The claim was allowed to be amended.

The petitioner is a farmer residing at Dugandan, formerly Tarampa, and he was married to respondent at the Lutheran Church, Minden, on 27th November, 1883. Immediately after the marriage ceremony had been performed they returned to petitioner's farm at Tarampa, where they lived together until early in the month of February following.They then had some slight quarrel about his going to a public-house, and Mrs. Gnech left her husband's house and went to her mother's place at Fernvale, a few miles away. This was about midday, and, as she did not return that night or next morning, the petitioner went to Ipswich, and, after delaying a day or so, sailed to Sydney, and remained away till the following December. On his return he was arrested in Ipswich for wife desertion, and brought up before the police-magistrate, who, however, made no order. Mrs. Gnech swore she was earning 25s. a week at Finney, Isles, and Co.'s, and the police-magistrate decided she was not without means of support. This was absolutely false, Mrs. Gnech never having worked at Finney, Isles, and Co.'s. After the case the petitioner asked the respondent to come and live with him again, which she agreed to do, stating at the same time that she would have to go to Brisbane to make arrangements first. A few days afterwards the petitioner received the following letter :

My dear husband, I just sit down to let you know that I am not coming on Satterday, and I will not live with you any more. You have left me. You hade left me for a long time without writing, and now I will live by myself, do not greeve over me. Darling. I have no more love for you, and if I did live with you I wold be unhappy with you, so It is best to me stay as I am. Stay where I am, and this will be all I can tell you

now.

I remain yours truely,

Loveing whiffe,

AUGUSTA GNECH

If you write to me, address me; Mrs. Gnech, Post Office, Brisbane.

He neither saw nor heard anything of his wife then for two months, when a man named Jacob Spresser told him something. He then went with Mr. G. R. Weise to Neumann's boarding house and saw his wife, and asked her to come and live with him again. She refused, and continued to cohabit with Lee, with whom she was then living. In June last petitioner gave instructions to his solicitor to take proceedings for dissolution of marriage and damages against Lee, not knowing at the time of the respondent being married to Leo. The petitions and citations were served by Mr. G. R.Weise, who knew the parties. No appearancewas entered within the proper time for eitherrespondent or co-respondent ; but on the 20th July Messrs. Foxton and Cardew, on behalf of Lee, wrote a letter to the effect that Mr. John Lee had consulted them with reference to proceedings taken by Mr. R. Gnech for a dissolution of his marriage from Ernestine W.A. Gnech, and for damages against their clientas co-respondent in the suit. Mr. Lee was married to Mrs. Gnech at Sydney on 7th June, 1884, she having at the time informed him that she was a single girl named Henrietta Devanstear. A copy of the marriage certificate was enclosed in the letter, and Messrs. Foxton and Cardew added that they were willing to allow Mr. O'sullivan, solicitor, Ipswich, to inspectthe original. The first notice their client re-ceived of his supposed wife as Mrs. Gnech was when he was served with the citation in this suit ; and upon speaking to Mrs. Gnech on the subject she denied being Gnech's wife, and even stated she did not know him. However, Mr. Lee had since made inquiries and now was satisfied that he had been shamefully misled by Mrs. Gnech, and he had refused to have anything more to do with her. Under the circumstances it was submitted by Messrs, Foxton and Cardew that the court would not make an order for their client to pay costs or damages ; and the simplest mannerof arranging the matter was for their client to appear in support of the petition, upon the other side giving an undertaking that they would not apply for damages or costs against him.

Of course, said Mr, REAL, in opening thecase they could give no such undertaking. He added that the respondent exhibited to Mrs. Neumann a document purporting to be a certificate of marriage with Lee.

The CHIEF JUSTICE : It is bigamy then ?

"Yes," Mr. REAL replied, "but there was no knowledge of that on the part of the petitioner at the commencement of the proceedings. She actually sued the petitioner for maintenance after that.

The CHIEF JUSTICE : Unless the co-respondent knew that she was a married woman he would not be liable for damages.

Mr. REAL : We cannot prove that he knew and it would be no use asking for damages in any case, as he is only a poor labouring man, and he has since left Brisbane.

The CHIEF JUSTICE : Under the circumstances he would simply be guilty of an immoral act. He would not be aware that he wasinjuring anyone.

The petitioner, Rudolph Gnech, a German, apparently about 33 years of age, gave evidence in support of the petition. His marriage to the petitioner, her separation from him, her cohabiting with the co-respondent, and his asking her to return to him were briefly stated by the witness, whose knowledge of English appeared to be rather imperfect.

Jane Betford, widow, daughter of the land-lord of the Railway Hotel, North Ipswich, which she managed for her father, stated that Lee and the respondent came to the hotel ;they lived in the boarding-house and slept in the same bedroom ; subsequently they rented a home from her father close to the hotel ; they represented themselves as man and wife throughout.

Caroline Neumann, wife of Carl Ferdinand Neumann, residing at Northbrook, formerly residing at North Ipswich, stated that Lee and the respondent rented two rooms from her ; they lived together as man and wife; the respondent, who called herself Mrs. Gnech, showed her a certificate of her marriage with Lee, and when she questioned her she denied having been married to or even knowing the petitioner.

G. R. Weise, grocer, Ipswich, and German interpreter at the Police Court there, stated that he know the petitioner and respondent, and he served copy of petition and citation upon the respondent ; he asked her to go back to her husband on one occasion, and she said she would if he would pay all expenses, whatever that might mean ; he asked her whether she did not think it was wrong for her to live with another man, and she commenced to cry; the respondent was the daughter of a small farmer living in the same neighbourhood as the petitioner's parents lived.

This was the case for the petitioner.

His HONOUR ordered a decree nisi for dis-solution of the marriage, to be moved absolute